War Room Lounge v153: Without Floyd it's an amazing sport.

[irish_thug]

Do you think Keaton was the best batman as well? Just trying to calibrate here.

By a wide margin.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I just figured out this thread title has nothing to do with George Floyd...

 

[Andy Capp]

One of the villains was named Pussy Galore , the appeal should be obvious...

Pussy was on the same side wasn't she? Am I misremembering?

 

[skysolo]

We have troops basically everywhere.

The "representatives" constantly and consistently vote to raise the "defense" budget, and we keep finding new ways to spend it.

You won't believe the deniers on this board.

An idiot literally said that Trump hasn't bombed a country during his term and 2 people replied agreeing with this horseshit.

WTF, man?

 

[Gandhi]

Affleck was the best. Truly shitty that it was in a mediocre movie.

Keaton is my second choice though.

How can we say someone was the best if they were working with shit? At most its a "could have been". That rules Ben out even if I think he had promise/potential. Batman vs Superman was bad, but had some salvageable Batman moments. That DC thing was a train wreck.

Keaton is maybe benefiting from people 's bad memories. Burton is garbage and Keaton is all wrong. And most of all Batman has to be able to move his neck. What kind of now powered crime fight has a costume on where he cant turn his head 5 degrees? Results in the silliest nonchalant overly choreographed fight scenes ever.

Behold the "Bat-Turn"!!!!1

 

[Trotsky]

The thing is, your argument falls apart when you realize that there isn't a mathematical formula to this shit. There's no entitlement to wealth, like you seem to think there is. If a demographic is as low as the black population is, they don't just automatically gain wealth through statistics. There are many, many factors involved. Most of which don't simply boil down to "racism", like you seem to think they do.

They're a very small pool. Wealth is gonna be rare, regardless.

Well, I'm glad that you turned away from your "portion of the population" demographic argument (although you referenced it again with the "small pool" bit which doesn't make any sense whatsoever), but your new argument that the "low" status of black Americans isn't due to historical racism and that their having a fraction of American wealth relative to their portion of the population is just coincidence is, again, extremely ignorant. It's only been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. Before then, black Americans were largely excluded from the national economy (and entirely from state economies in which black populations were concentrated after slavery) and from sharing in national wealth. Hell, until after the Civil War, black Americans couldn't even vote or own land.

Of course, the disparity in wealth by race isn't due to the active racial animus of individuals, like as if there is a committee of white people concocting ways to keep blacks poorer than whites, but that's obviously not what we're talking about when we talk about historical and systemic racism and its influence on wealth and income.

PS - Why bring this to the lounge? Really putting a dent in that "nuh-uh, it's not a Liberal safe space to look for support!" argument.

...because the thread was on Nike's profit losses, i.e. something completely unrelated to this topic. You and @kenetics talking about racial wealth disparities was already a substantial derail.

Also, moving it here has the effect of saving you embarrassment, since your posts were objectively wrong and, like I said, shockingly uninformed. I give you some slack in light of the fact that you're Canadian, but that just means you shouldn't have been so confident in stating something so obviously wrong.

 

[BEER]

How can say someone was the best if they were working with shit. At most its a "could have been". That rules Ben out even if I think he had promise. Batman vs Superman was bad, but had some salvageable batman moments. That DC thing was a train wreck.

Keaton is benefiting from bad memories. Burton is garbage and Keaton is all wrong. And most of all batman has to be able to move his neck. What kind of now powered crime fight has a costume on where he cant turn his head 5 degrees?

You're watching Youtube videos.

I'm watching the movies.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Pussy was on the same side wasn't she? Am I misremembering?

Didn't she work with Goldfinger , her and her squad of lesbians?

 

[tonni]

You're watching Youtube videos.

I'm watching the movies.

 

[irish_thug]

I just figured out this thread title has nothing to do with George Floyd...

It was my comment on the state of boxing with Mayweather being retired.

 

[HereticBD]

Well, I'm glad that you turned away from your "portion of the population" demographic argument (although you referenced it again with the "small pool" bit which doesn't make any sense whatsoever), but your new argument that the "low" status of black Americans isn't due to historical racism and that their having a fraction of American wealth relative to their portion of the population is just coincidence is, again, extremely ignorant. It's only been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act. Before then, black Americans were largely excluded from the national economy (and entirely from state economies in which black populations were concentrated after slavery) and from sharing in national wealth. Hell, until after the Civil War, black Americans couldn't even vote or own land.

Of course, the disparity in wealth by race isn't due to the active racial animus of individuals, like as if there is a committee of white people concocting ways to keep blacks poorer than whites, but that's obviously not what we're talking about when we talk about historical and systemic racism and its influence on wealth and income.

That's a whole lot of "I don't really have an answer, but I'm gonna pretend that I do."

It's demographics. They're 10% of the population. What would be their appropriate wealth representation, given that fact? Not very high, or even significant, I would assume, but I'll hear you out. What's the reason they've got very little wealth representation, Trots?

 

[skysolo]

"Trump never bombed the middle east. I have relatives there who say that he didn't."

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

What's up with this @dezzy?

 

[Trotsky]

That's a whole lot of "I don't really have an answer, but I'm gonna pretend that I do."

I get that you're pathologically disinclined to converse rationally, but please give it a shot as I'm not in the best of moods.

No, I cannot point to a single policy that wholly influenced the suppression of black wealth. I can, however, point to an endless list of reasons appreciated by historians, social scientists, and a couple of the sources I gave you earlier in those graphs: discrimination with regard to citizenship, discrimination with regard to enfranchisement, discrimination with regard to property rights (and subsequent property ownership), discrimination with regard to employment, discrimination with regard to housing, discrimination with regard to public education, discrimination with regard to private education, discrimination with regard to business and individual loans, discrimination with regard to labor union membership. The list goes on.

It's demographics. They're 10% of the population.

First, I'm not sure that you know what "demographics" means, to be honest. Demographics are the study of data related to population groups, so any discussion about disparities among population groups is fundamentally demographic in nature, yes. Saying something is "due to demographics" is like saying that mortality is "due to death." It's completely circular. Unless, your original proposition were true: that black Americans did own wealth relative to their share of the population (approximately 13%).

If the average black American had and made the same as the average white American and people were bitching that black wealth is only $15 trillion compared to the $70 trillion owned by white Americans (with that being roughly proportional to their shares of the population), then you would have a point. But that's not the case, and you don't.

What would be their appropriate wealth representation, given that fact? Not very high, or even significant, I would assume, but I'll hear you out. What's the reason they've got very little wealth representation, Trots?

13% obviously. In which case the wealth disparity would definitively be "just demographics."

What's the reason they've got very little wealth representation, Trots?

See above.

 

[skysolo]

"WP" in "WPEM" apparently stands for "white progressive".

Someone double-check, am I white? Did you tell me parents?

 

[tonni]

@EL CORINTHIAN if you like surrealism.

https://beinart.org/

 

[tonni]

"WP" in "WPEM" apparently stands for "white progressive".

Someone double-check, am I white? Did you tell me parents?

I told ye parents when ye was just a wee lad

 

[Lead]

I spent a fair amount (not massive but some time) learning a bunch of deep half guard from a kesting seminar as well as via some private lessons from one of our black belts (the different leg /arm positions, rollforward, roll back, back take, elevator, as well some GI grip roll backs). But I was never able to get it into an active part of my game however. Similar to some versions of the triple attack, its not always easy to get deep on someone without getting the cross face of death.

I think I could spend several months just learning the positional / defense aspects of half guard before I go back into it. But right now I am (well when I get back into it I fell of the wagon a bit) all open guard (did the kesting spider g series and now I am doing his new Jon Thomas one).

Do you like to get underneath in half, if so then moving to and from deep half is great. You can work the normal triple attack series from normal underneath guard and then switch to deep and really destabilize him. Obviously need to watch the kimura, knee bar, and even Gi choke and you can get smashed but if you like half, you should add it. Pretty sure the Giles set has some deep in it, don't u have that one?

Yea, my favorite sweep involves getting under and rolling over my shoulder and I’m just very comfortable in half already so the spot feels pretty familiar despite never using it. I think Giles does have a section but I skipped it. For a while I just didn’t get the idea of why that would work and wasn’t aware of the entries. It definitely isn’t going to be my go to but if you have that, and 4-5 of threats in half, it makes it feel pretty amazing to suddenly realize when that’s open to use.

 

[tonni]

How does one get off the spectrum? Asking for a friend.

 

[tonni]

Yea, my favorite sweep involves getting under and rolling over my shoulder and I’m just very comfortable in half already so the spot feels pretty familiar despite never using it. I think Giles does have a section but I skipped it. For a while I just didn’t get the idea of why that would work and wasn’t aware of the entries. It definitely isn’t going to be my go to but if you have that, and 4-5 of threats in half, it makes it feel pretty amazing to suddenly realize when that’s open to use.

Have you ever bonered during a roll?